I really like 6" Fostex because they are a bit sweeter than the 8" Fostex. Four months ago, I built a BiB for the FE166-ESR's but had been hoping for more bass (as it turns out, a switch of amp fixed that).
Eventually, into those BiB's went the Jordan JX92S and wow, what an incredible amount of bass (and treble) -- a truly fullrange driver that just totally rocked out on home theater, but I got a deal on an 8-watt Dared 2A3C which made me want to go back to higher efficiency.
As soon as I swapped in the 2A3C (with Jordans in the BiB's), I heard a lot more bass. Aha, so the driver/amp combo is why the BiB/Fostex had lacked bass. The 2A3C + Jordan + BiB's actually had too much bass to be in the corners (could be useful for those without corners).
My old stand-by's, the FE166-ESR's, always felt a tad shy in the treble, so I wondered what the 168's might be like. At the moment, the 168's are in the 166-ESR's BiB's, breaking in. (The 166's are in the Austins.)
Some observations:
The two drivers weigh roughly the same, but the 166-ESR seems to have a bigger, heavier magnet. The 166-ESR has a stamped frame (painted sapphire blue) whereas the 168 has a cast metal frame.
The 166 magnet is basically just as big as the driver cutout needs to be, whereas the 168 is slimmer but "taller". Neither have clearance problems in a BiB (nor an Austin).
The 168 with its big flange seems almost as large as an 8" Fostex, but the cone area is actually quite small for a 6" driver (unless Sd includes all those bumps -- hmm.)
What the attached pics don't show is that the 168's fancy over-under surround is mirrored in the spider -- same over-under, same symmetry. A truly unusual spider but I couldn't get a close-up photo in-focus.
One bonus: the 168 has 8 holes, but four of them line up perfectly with the 166's holes. Yay.
In the end, if I'd known the 2A3 amp would have such a dramatic effect on bass, I probably would have just stuck with the FE166-ESR's and gotten a nice Fostex tweeter. (My advice: instead of collecting lots of tiny, cheap amps like I've done, maybe invest in one good one. But if you're cash-strapped, the Miniwatt does bring up the bass lots.)
In terms of sound, the Fostex have the "family sound" (smooth, beautiful midrange). Neither has the low and high extension of the JX92S, but there is a warmth and mellow tone that is lovely, laid back and listenable. It's like the difference between electric and acoustic guitars.
Regarding which Fostex is better, I'll put one of each in the Austins and see, but I don't think there would be a clear-cut winner (who knows though?) If there's a winner, it might be the BiB's which are just an idiot-proof way to lots of good sound. They aren't nearly as smooth in the bass as the Austins, but then again, they are a really fast build, plus they have a very small footprint.
Eventually, into those BiB's went the Jordan JX92S and wow, what an incredible amount of bass (and treble) -- a truly fullrange driver that just totally rocked out on home theater, but I got a deal on an 8-watt Dared 2A3C which made me want to go back to higher efficiency.
As soon as I swapped in the 2A3C (with Jordans in the BiB's), I heard a lot more bass. Aha, so the driver/amp combo is why the BiB/Fostex had lacked bass. The 2A3C + Jordan + BiB's actually had too much bass to be in the corners (could be useful for those without corners).
My old stand-by's, the FE166-ESR's, always felt a tad shy in the treble, so I wondered what the 168's might be like. At the moment, the 168's are in the 166-ESR's BiB's, breaking in. (The 166's are in the Austins.)
Some observations:
The two drivers weigh roughly the same, but the 166-ESR seems to have a bigger, heavier magnet. The 166-ESR has a stamped frame (painted sapphire blue) whereas the 168 has a cast metal frame.
The 166 magnet is basically just as big as the driver cutout needs to be, whereas the 168 is slimmer but "taller". Neither have clearance problems in a BiB (nor an Austin).
The 168 with its big flange seems almost as large as an 8" Fostex, but the cone area is actually quite small for a 6" driver (unless Sd includes all those bumps -- hmm.)
What the attached pics don't show is that the 168's fancy over-under surround is mirrored in the spider -- same over-under, same symmetry. A truly unusual spider but I couldn't get a close-up photo in-focus.
One bonus: the 168 has 8 holes, but four of them line up perfectly with the 166's holes. Yay.
In the end, if I'd known the 2A3 amp would have such a dramatic effect on bass, I probably would have just stuck with the FE166-ESR's and gotten a nice Fostex tweeter. (My advice: instead of collecting lots of tiny, cheap amps like I've done, maybe invest in one good one. But if you're cash-strapped, the Miniwatt does bring up the bass lots.)
In terms of sound, the Fostex have the "family sound" (smooth, beautiful midrange). Neither has the low and high extension of the JX92S, but there is a warmth and mellow tone that is lovely, laid back and listenable. It's like the difference between electric and acoustic guitars.
Regarding which Fostex is better, I'll put one of each in the Austins and see, but I don't think there would be a clear-cut winner (who knows though?) If there's a winner, it might be the BiB's which are just an idiot-proof way to lots of good sound. They aren't nearly as smooth in the bass as the Austins, but then again, they are a really fast build, plus they have a very small footprint.
Attachments
Nice summary!
The jordans need a different amount of stuffing (usually a lot more) to get the bass down in a cabinet meant for a driver like fostex (read light cone, low qts).
Of course the jordans are a different kind of fun and I bet they play louder too.
I agree on the miniwatt too... its a fantastic amp for the money. I've begun to reach its power limitations tho... currently on OB, driving AN8s, the miniwatt begins to clip on loud or complex sections.
The jordans need a different amount of stuffing (usually a lot more) to get the bass down in a cabinet meant for a driver like fostex (read light cone, low qts).
Of course the jordans are a different kind of fun and I bet they play louder too.
I agree on the miniwatt too... its a fantastic amp for the money. I've begun to reach its power limitations tho... currently on OB, driving AN8s, the miniwatt begins to clip on loud or complex sections.
Hi ra7,
My sense is that the Fostex and Jordans all play roughly the same in volume (the Fostex being more efficient are happy between 9 and 11 o'clock, the Jordans wanted 12 to 1 o'clock).
Two clarifications on the pictures:
1. In the side-view pic, the height difference is exaggerated because the FE168E-Sigma has its "plastic protector" on, giving another 1/8th in height. (The plastic protector prevents the driver from sitting on its surround.)
2. Oh look, you can indeed see the 168's unique spider in that side-view picture.
My sense is that the Fostex and Jordans all play roughly the same in volume (the Fostex being more efficient are happy between 9 and 11 o'clock, the Jordans wanted 12 to 1 o'clock).
Two clarifications on the pictures:
1. In the side-view pic, the height difference is exaggerated because the FE168E-Sigma has its "plastic protector" on, giving another 1/8th in height. (The plastic protector prevents the driver from sitting on its surround.)
2. Oh look, you can indeed see the 168's unique spider in that side-view picture.
>>> it might be the BiB's which are just an idiot-proof way to lots of good sound.
LOL. I agree!
>>> My advice: instead of collecting lots of tiny, cheap amps like I've done, maybe invest in one good one.
I also agree. I have a nice Cary tube amp that i love. But it's fun to collect cheap amps too. My cheap digital amp collection is about to grow again.
>>> the Fostex have the "family sound" (smooth, beautiful midrange). Neither has the low and high extension of the JX92S, but there is a warmth and mellow tone that is lovely, laid back and listenable.
I find this to be the case with my 168s (old style with wizzer) and 165k when they are in the right cabinet. But i find the 127e to be more forward and bright.
I always wanted to hear the Jordan's... still do.
Godzilla
LOL. I agree!
>>> My advice: instead of collecting lots of tiny, cheap amps like I've done, maybe invest in one good one.
I also agree. I have a nice Cary tube amp that i love. But it's fun to collect cheap amps too. My cheap digital amp collection is about to grow again.
>>> the Fostex have the "family sound" (smooth, beautiful midrange). Neither has the low and high extension of the JX92S, but there is a warmth and mellow tone that is lovely, laid back and listenable.
I find this to be the case with my 168s (old style with wizzer) and 165k when they are in the right cabinet. But i find the 127e to be more forward and bright.
I always wanted to hear the Jordan's... still do.
Godzilla
Hi guys,
Sd: 113 cm^2 (168) vs. 132.7cm^2 (166ESR)
Qts: .26 (168) vs. .21 (166ESR)
Bl: 8 Tesla (168) vs. 8.564 (166ESR)
Xmax: 1.6mm (168) vs. .7 (166ESR)
So the ESR does seem to have the stronger motor, whereas the 168's higher Qts and Xmax could have a little more bump (but only marginally, I would imagine, since its Qts is still very low). Or maybe all the differences balance out -- either way, these are both horn drivers.
I'm not sure how they calculated the 168's Sd, since it looks like an origami project (5-pointed star "recessed" into the cone, with corresponding "mountains" and "valleys".) The dust cap has the same sort of 3D design.
The paper on each driver seems different, with the 168's paper seeming coarser and drier to the touch. Based on that, I'd guess the papers are not the same formulation.
Sd: 113 cm^2 (168) vs. 132.7cm^2 (166ESR)
Qts: .26 (168) vs. .21 (166ESR)
Bl: 8 Tesla (168) vs. 8.564 (166ESR)
Xmax: 1.6mm (168) vs. .7 (166ESR)
So the ESR does seem to have the stronger motor, whereas the 168's higher Qts and Xmax could have a little more bump (but only marginally, I would imagine, since its Qts is still very low). Or maybe all the differences balance out -- either way, these are both horn drivers.
I'm not sure how they calculated the 168's Sd, since it looks like an origami project (5-pointed star "recessed" into the cone, with corresponding "mountains" and "valleys".) The dust cap has the same sort of 3D design.
The paper on each driver seems different, with the 168's paper seeming coarser and drier to the touch. Based on that, I'd guess the papers are not the same formulation.
Last edited:
Another difference: the factory frequency response graphs.
The FE166ESR has always sounded smooth as fresh-churned butter to me, and they sounded good right out of the box (I can't even remember breaking them in).
The FE168E-Sigma, by comparision, immediately sounded quite sibilant (but is not yet broken in). It does seem to have some bumps in the range of sibilance.
Maybe:
(a) the 166's bigger motor results in a smoother response?
(b) the 166 sounding a tad shy in treble is actually a lack of spikes in the frequency response?
It's interesting how close these drivers are, feature for feature.
The FE166ESR has always sounded smooth as fresh-churned butter to me, and they sounded good right out of the box (I can't even remember breaking them in).
The FE168E-Sigma, by comparision, immediately sounded quite sibilant (but is not yet broken in). It does seem to have some bumps in the range of sibilance.
Maybe:
(a) the 166's bigger motor results in a smoother response?
(b) the 166 sounding a tad shy in treble is actually a lack of spikes in the frequency response?
It's interesting how close these drivers are, feature for feature.
Attachments
How do you feel about the horn delay of the Austin/166es-r? Iirc that was the prior issue Robert had with them. Has me wondering how that aspect compares to the Hiro? So far i think Hiro's shortcoming's are listening distance's required and from what i gather here a less balanced BW.
My problem with the Austins is they'd have to be out 4' and 6' from each side wall when up along a 19'L interior wall/brick exterior. Another room could accommodate them on a 9' span on the same brick front side of the house, it's actually 12'wide x 17'l only with a 3' closet outcropping of the 12'width so not ideal. That room barley works with the Hiro's on the opposite 12'w /"drywall" interior walls. I'd have to rearrange the furniture and place the Austins on the 17' side which i'm pretty sure would lose focus of imaging at ~8 out from the 45º angle placed corner horn's supra baffle/drivers.
Sorry for going slightly sideways with your original topic and thanks for the comparison.
It's too bad Fostex didn't give the 166es-r a cast chassis. I'd like to see a Alnico version which measures as well, we can only hope...
My problem with the Austins is they'd have to be out 4' and 6' from each side wall when up along a 19'L interior wall/brick exterior. Another room could accommodate them on a 9' span on the same brick front side of the house, it's actually 12'wide x 17'l only with a 3' closet outcropping of the 12'width so not ideal. That room barley works with the Hiro's on the opposite 12'w /"drywall" interior walls. I'd have to rearrange the furniture and place the Austins on the 17' side which i'm pretty sure would lose focus of imaging at ~8 out from the 45º angle placed corner horn's supra baffle/drivers.
Sorry for going slightly sideways with your original topic and thanks for the comparison.
It's too bad Fostex didn't give the 166es-r a cast chassis. I'd like to see a Alnico version which measures as well, we can only hope...
Last edited:
Hi mp9,
I honestly can't say I hear the delay. After listening to tiny boxes without much bass, all I hear is the big, full, open, airy horn bass of the Austin (and BiB). It could be that I'll hear it eventually, once I top high-five-ing myself ("Austins!")
The Austins work on the side wall if you have the deflector. In fact, I think this is preferable to being in corners with the 45-degree angle. If they have an Achilles heel for me, it's the driver height is a tad high.
Regarding Fostex releasing an Alnico 166-something: someone said the best way to predict the future is to invent it. How about we /design/ one as a group project and then get it made? I just want the Alnico to come in blocks so that I can add/subtract magnetic strength like a field coil. Maybe you've seen Atelier Rullit's work? Atelier Rullit - Klangfilm 44022 - sandwich cone pictures from news photos on webshots
I honestly can't say I hear the delay. After listening to tiny boxes without much bass, all I hear is the big, full, open, airy horn bass of the Austin (and BiB). It could be that I'll hear it eventually, once I top high-five-ing myself ("Austins!")
The Austins work on the side wall if you have the deflector. In fact, I think this is preferable to being in corners with the 45-degree angle. If they have an Achilles heel for me, it's the driver height is a tad high.
Regarding Fostex releasing an Alnico 166-something: someone said the best way to predict the future is to invent it. How about we /design/ one as a group project and then get it made? I just want the Alnico to come in blocks so that I can add/subtract magnetic strength like a field coil. Maybe you've seen Atelier Rullit's work? Atelier Rullit - Klangfilm 44022 - sandwich cone pictures from news photos on webshots
FWIW, if you're looking for a driver manufacturer interested in entertaining (but not financing 😱 ) a small batch lot of signature series drivers, you could always talk to Mark Fenlon 😉 -
on second thought, he'd probably try to talk you out of the Alnico or stacking magnets, as well as stamped or cast metal baskets ...🙄
but at least he would reply - try that with Fostex
Hi Chris, cool suggestion, thank you! Are there drawbacks to Alnico aside from the fragility weakening over time?
You have to know I was (half) kidding, but as to the Alnico - my conscious* experience has been limited to either vintage drivers that often have other issues besides aging of magnets (i.e. loose &/or stiff surrounds on Foster 103F) or current production units that might be outside of a lot of DIYers budgets ( i.e. Fostex F120A/F200A , Feastrex, Lowther, et al.) So one of the major drawbacks would be price/availability.
*vintage systems such as mid - late 70's JBLs that I may have heard over the years likely had some Alnico drivers, but I didn't give them much consideration at the time
And of course many inclined to the more exotic field coil drivers would sniff at the discussion of any permanent magnet alloy, be it Alnico, Neodymium, Ticonal, etc.
Hi Chris, oh no, I did not realize you were half-kidding. But it could be a good idea?
It seems so much faster to just go and get the needed driver custom-built rather than invest time and money seeking out expensive, exotic and/or vintage drivers.
For example, it would be great to have a Lowther with a Qts of .5 (like a Coral). The PM6A as measured by MJK is about .33. Why not shed some of that magnet strength? It wouldn't be a Coral but it would be closer.
Alternatively, MJK suggested reducing the magnet strength (if only experimentally) via an electro-magnet, which is the smart way. But a custom driver with interchangeable magnet modules doesn't seem totally unreasonable if only as a learning / experimenting tool.
It seems so much faster to just go and get the needed driver custom-built rather than invest time and money seeking out expensive, exotic and/or vintage drivers.
For example, it would be great to have a Lowther with a Qts of .5 (like a Coral). The PM6A as measured by MJK is about .33. Why not shed some of that magnet strength? It wouldn't be a Coral but it would be closer.
Alternatively, MJK suggested reducing the magnet strength (if only experimentally) via an electro-magnet, which is the smart way. But a custom driver with interchangeable magnet modules doesn't seem totally unreasonable if only as a learning / experimenting tool.
hey Robert,
did you ever try those tweeters i left w/ the austins?
I thought they helped crossed in ~ 10k.
I'll try to bring the deflectors by this weekend.
Yeah, alnico can loose mag strength over time, needs to be recharged.
It's nice to be able to change magnet strength w/ field coils. Less expensive too... (for us diyers)
You are aware of the drivers on jeffrey & dave's blog, mark will be selling them, going in some maxx horns (whatever they're called now), gonna be in that show in dallas in a couple weeks?
basically a budget version of the lowther magnet we did last year, dave just scaled it to fit the alpair basket/voice coil, and omitted some cosmetic stuff.
not trying to derail your thread;
you're staying busy!
did you ever try those tweeters i left w/ the austins?
I thought they helped crossed in ~ 10k.
I'll try to bring the deflectors by this weekend.
Yeah, alnico can loose mag strength over time, needs to be recharged.
It's nice to be able to change magnet strength w/ field coils. Less expensive too... (for us diyers)
You are aware of the drivers on jeffrey & dave's blog, mark will be selling them, going in some maxx horns (whatever they're called now), gonna be in that show in dallas in a couple weeks?
basically a budget version of the lowther magnet we did last year, dave just scaled it to fit the alpair basket/voice coil, and omitted some cosmetic stuff.
not trying to derail your thread;
you're staying busy!
Hi Robert!
Wow, you're not derailing anything with that gorgeous Mark Audio field coil: MyEmia
It looks like the Lone Star Audio Fest has an unprecedented four vendors doing fullrange by my count (Brines, Affirm, Van Zyl, Mssrs. Jackson and Slage): http://lonestaraudiofest.com
I have not tried the tweeters but I now agree with you that the 166's could use just a bit of sparkle. The 168's seem a bit brighter and airier, maybe it's that 7.5k peak?
Robert, I will zip out to Dallas for the show. I wish you could attend! There's still time...
Wow, you're not derailing anything with that gorgeous Mark Audio field coil: MyEmia
It looks like the Lone Star Audio Fest has an unprecedented four vendors doing fullrange by my count (Brines, Affirm, Van Zyl, Mssrs. Jackson and Slage): http://lonestaraudiofest.com
I have not tried the tweeters but I now agree with you that the 166's could use just a bit of sparkle. The 168's seem a bit brighter and airier, maybe it's that 7.5k peak?
Robert, I will zip out to Dallas for the show. I wish you could attend! There's still time...
Last edited:
i don't know if this will come out on the right page, but:
hifi heroin blog.
should have some picts of the alpairs & maxhorn/bibs they were in @ daves.
there will be a pair of field coil lowthers in wood 140 hz lecleach horns there too.
(same size horns as i'm getting, & working on compression drivers for now, for five-way horn system).
hifi heroin blog.
should have some picts of the alpairs & maxhorn/bibs they were in @ daves.
there will be a pair of field coil lowthers in wood 140 hz lecleach horns there too.
(same size horns as i'm getting, & working on compression drivers for now, for five-way horn system).
Last edited:
What a pity seeing people's frequent yearning of a high quality high Q driver.
There's always another way to tune the (system) Q other than (directly) weakening the driver's motor - like Mr. Nelson Pass did (or still do?) with amps of high output impedance.
I've also tried and still use this idea with very satifying results in the bass of my multi-way speaker.
http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/cs-amps-speakers.pdf
Variable Amplifier Impedance
Don't like sand amps? I believe there're still ways to do the same in any tube amps.
There's always another way to tune the (system) Q other than (directly) weakening the driver's motor - like Mr. Nelson Pass did (or still do?) with amps of high output impedance.
I've also tried and still use this idea with very satifying results in the bass of my multi-way speaker.
http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/cs-amps-speakers.pdf
Variable Amplifier Impedance
Don't like sand amps? I believe there're still ways to do the same in any tube amps.
Hi CLS, thank you for that!
Today, Mssr. Serencechaos stopped by with his lovely wife for a quick casual listen before hauling away some LaScala cabs.
The FE168E-Sigmas continue to break in, now transferred from the BiB's to the Austins. The Austins have tight, full, flat and basically perfect bass whereas the BiB's by comparison go very deep but aren't as tight and flat. BiB's rock on soundtracks but the Austins are better on jazz etc. (and have been playing Miles Davis all weekend).
Comparing the drivers, in my opinion the 168's have a bit of sibilance and some "bite" in the treble, which some might like ( assume this is the ~7k peak). The 166ESR's are much smoother in my opinion. The 168's lean toward "rich and full," almost euphonic (at least with my amp) which really works well on jazz. In comparison, I'd say the 166ESR's are more "clear and transparent".
My amp (Dared 2A3C) brings the bass up a couple notches (compared to my earlier hybrid amp), and as a result, I think the Austins could probably now be on the wall instead of the corners.
1. Dave/planet10, you EnABL'ed some 168E-Sigma's recently. Would you have any listening impressions?
2. Does anyone recall Ron's chamber volume for the 168E-Sigma? I know Layertone uses that driver in his Austins. Otherwise adjusting by hand is easy enough.
3. Has anybody heard from Ron recently? He last logged in as REC1 in January 2009. I hope he's doing well, and I wonder if he ever pursued the Houston (his single driver compound horn).
Today, Mssr. Serencechaos stopped by with his lovely wife for a quick casual listen before hauling away some LaScala cabs.
The FE168E-Sigmas continue to break in, now transferred from the BiB's to the Austins. The Austins have tight, full, flat and basically perfect bass whereas the BiB's by comparison go very deep but aren't as tight and flat. BiB's rock on soundtracks but the Austins are better on jazz etc. (and have been playing Miles Davis all weekend).
Comparing the drivers, in my opinion the 168's have a bit of sibilance and some "bite" in the treble, which some might like ( assume this is the ~7k peak). The 166ESR's are much smoother in my opinion. The 168's lean toward "rich and full," almost euphonic (at least with my amp) which really works well on jazz. In comparison, I'd say the 166ESR's are more "clear and transparent".
My amp (Dared 2A3C) brings the bass up a couple notches (compared to my earlier hybrid amp), and as a result, I think the Austins could probably now be on the wall instead of the corners.
1. Dave/planet10, you EnABL'ed some 168E-Sigma's recently. Would you have any listening impressions?
2. Does anyone recall Ron's chamber volume for the 168E-Sigma? I know Layertone uses that driver in his Austins. Otherwise adjusting by hand is easy enough.
3. Has anybody heard from Ron recently? He last logged in as REC1 in January 2009. I hope he's doing well, and I wonder if he ever pursued the Houston (his single driver compound horn).
Last edited:
I thought the wall corners act as the last fold of the horn's expansion and can almost remember Ron posting that being needed. Let me know how moving them out along a rear wall works out.
1/ not enuff to make a serious comment
3/ No, i hope he is OK. I got no response from an email sometime back, I'd really like to contact him.
dave
Hi mp9, you are correct, sir. However, Ron uses SS amps and my tube amp has "too much bass" (*high five*) and I think Ron said putting them against the wall, with a triangular deflector, it would be okay but would have 5-10Hz less extension. In my room, they are in the corners of the long wall and they are too far apart for a real stereo effect.
Dave, thanks for that! I hope you can get an update from him.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.